lnu.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Gustafsson, Barbro
Publications (10 of 21) Show all publications
Gustafsson, B. & Fonseca, L. (2019). "Det ger ju en legitimitet till utbildningen": Lärarstudenternas synpunkter på lämplighetsprövningen (1ed.). In: Lars Fonseca, Per Gerrevall och Barbro Gustafsson (Ed.), Lämplighetsbedömning inför antagning till lärarutbildningen: Erfarenheter från Linnéuniversitetets försöksverksamhet (pp. 129-142). Växjö: Linnaeus University Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>"Det ger ju en legitimitet till utbildningen": Lärarstudenternas synpunkter på lämplighetsprövningen
2019 (Swedish)In: Lämplighetsbedömning inför antagning till lärarutbildningen: Erfarenheter från Linnéuniversitetets försöksverksamhet / [ed] Lars Fonseca, Per Gerrevall och Barbro Gustafsson, Växjö: Linnaeus University Press, 2019, 1, p. 129-142Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Växjö: Linnaeus University Press, 2019 Edition: 1
Keywords
Lämplighetsbedömning, lämpllighetsprov, lärarutbildning
National Category
Humanities and the Arts
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-81539 (URN)978-91-88898-37-1 (ISBN)978-91-88898-38-8 (ISBN)
Available from: 2019-04-01 Created: 2019-04-01 Last updated: 2019-04-01
Gustafsson, B. & Öhman, J. (2013). DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(2), 319-338
Open this publication in new window or tab >>DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations
2013 (English)In: International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, ISSN 1306-3065, Vol. 8, no 2, p. 319-338Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

School is assumed to equip students with subject knowledge and contribute to their development as human beings and democratic citizens as well. In this article, the democratic dimension of the teaching assignment is brought to the fore, and an analysis tool for investigating students’ conversations on socioscientific issues that emphasises democratic aspects is presented. The DEQUAL-tool, where the acronyms stand for DEliberative QUALities, comprises both the content-related and formal aspects of the conversations, with a specific emphasis on the collective expressions of democratic qualities like questioning, consideration for others and conveying different dimensions and arguments. DEQUAL is based on an intersubjective and communicative understanding of democracy and meaning-making, and is theoretically inspired by John Dewey’s and Jürgen Habermas’ views on these matters. The development and function of DEQUAL is clarified using excerpts from upper secondary school students talking about how living in a certain place influences the greenhouse effect. By pointing out characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of students’ group-conversations, this methodological proposal can provide further guidance for an integrative understanding of the teacher’s assignment in science education.

Keywords
Socioscientific issues, SSI, deliberations, Dewey, Habermas, democracy
National Category
Pedagogy
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Pedagogics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-9481 (URN)10.12973/ijese.2013.208a (DOI)2-s2.0-84877129087 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2010-12-13 Created: 2010-11-25 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. (2011). Ett metodologiskt bidrag för undersökningar av sociovetenskapliga samtal.. In: : . Paper presented at NFSUN 2011 - Nordiskt forskarsymposium om undervisningen i naturvetenskap. Linköping 14 - 16 juni..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ett metodologiskt bidrag för undersökningar av sociovetenskapliga samtal.
2011 (Swedish)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [sv]

Hur elever formulerar sig och underbygger ett naturvetenskapligt resonemang finns belyst i tidigare naturvetenskaplig undervisningsforskning. Man kan därför med hjälp av tillgängliga analysmodeller och resultat säga något om styrkor och svagheter i elevers naturvetenskapliga resonemang. Att kunna använda ämneskunskaper i argumentation och välgrundat beslutsfattande utgör visserligen en delmängd av de eftersträvade demokratiska färdigheterna, men demokratiuppdraget är mer omfattande eftersom man tillsammans med ämneskunskaper även förväntas utveckla förmågor som kritiskt tänkande, hänsynstagande och etisk reflektion.

Därför, om man som lärare eller forskare ska kunna bedöma och utvärdera såväl ämneskunskaper som demokratiska förmågor så behövs redskap anpassade för att undersöka denna mångfald av aspekter.

I mitt bidrag beskrivs hur ett sådant analysverktyg, DEQUAL, växt fram i en abduktiv process där empiri och teoretiskt ramverk interagerar. Empirin omfattar totalt fyra timmars inspelning av 25 samtal, cirka 10 minuter långa, där gymnasieelever diskuterar sociovetenskapliga frågor kring hur sättet att leva påverkar växthuseffekten. Redskapet är uppbyggt kring en intersubjektiv och kommunikativ förståelse av demokrati och meningsskapande där John Deweys och Jürgen Habermas syn på dessa frågor har bidragit på ett betydelsefullt sätt.

Demokratiuppdraget operationaliseras dels som undervisningsform (elevsamtal kring samhällsfrågor), dels som demokratiskt innehåll i samtalstematiken. I analysprocessen som lett fram till redskapet har särskild vikt lagts vid demokratiska kvalitéer som ifrågasättande, hänsynstagande och kollektivt beslutsfattande, vilket särskiljer arbetet från studier av elevsamtal kring SSI som fokuserat hur elever använder, underbygger och utvecklar naturvetenskapliga kunskaper och begrepp. Resultat från DEQUAL-analyser av åtta elevsamtal kommer att presenteras.

Förhoppningen är att analysverktyget DEQUAL kan erbjuda kunskap och vägledning för en integrativ förståelse av lärarens uppdrag i naturvetenskaplig utbildning, och att forskare och lärare med redskapets hjälp ska nå ökad kunskap om demokrati och meningsskapande i elevers gruppsamtal kring sociovetenskapliga  frågeställningar.

Keywords
Didaktik, lärarutbildning, SSI, demokrati, undervisning
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Natural Science, Science Education
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-12859 (URN)
Conference
NFSUN 2011 - Nordiskt forskarsymposium om undervisningen i naturvetenskap. Linköping 14 - 16 juni.
Available from: 2011-06-21 Created: 2011-06-21 Last updated: 2014-05-19Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. (2010). DEQUAL – ett redskap för undersökningar av sociovetenskapliga samtal i naturvetenskaplig undervisning.. Paper presented at Bidrag vid konferensen "Att kommunicera naturvetenskap i teori och praktik" den 16-17 november 2010 i Kristianstad..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>DEQUAL – ett redskap för undersökningar av sociovetenskapliga samtal i naturvetenskaplig undervisning.
2010 (Swedish)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
National Category
Pedagogy
Research subject
Natural Science, Science Education
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-9483 (URN)
Conference
Bidrag vid konferensen "Att kommunicera naturvetenskap i teori och praktik" den 16-17 november 2010 i Kristianstad.
Note
Bidrag vid konferensen "Att kommunicera naturvetenskap i teori och praktik" den 16-17 november 2010 i Kristianstad.Available from: 2010-12-13 Created: 2010-11-25 Last updated: 2010-12-30Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. (2010). Undersökningar av sociovetenskapliga samtal i naturvetenskaplig utbildning. (Doctoral dissertation). Växjö, Kalmar: Linnaeus University Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Undersökningar av sociovetenskapliga samtal i naturvetenskaplig utbildning
2010 (Swedish)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The thesis examines the potential of students’ group discussions in science education in the context of a communicative perspective on democracy and meaning-making. The group discussions in focus are about socioscientific issues (SSI), i.e. controversial and complex issues with scientific as well as sociological aspects. The philosophical works of John Dewey and Jürgen Habermas serve as the main theoretical underpinnings. Different types of empirical data were used for the qualitative analyses: policy documents, student teachers’ essays, student interviews and recorded group discussions between classmates.

Attention is drawn to the twofold educational mission to ensure students’ subject knowledge and democratic growth, where the democracy aspect of this mission is in danger of being given secondary priority in science education. Deliberations about SSI are suggested as a possible way of bridging the gap between the two tasks. An ideal deliberation is characterised by democratic virtues such as sincerity, consideration, a critical review of what is otherwise taken for granted and an aspiration to seek agreement. SSIs facilitate theoretical, ethical and moral reflection and examine argumentation skills in a reflective and considerate way in order to lead to participation and the creation of meaning in mutual communication.

Both the possibilities and shortcomings of deliberative-oriented group conversations were highlighted in the interviews with upper secondary school students involved in the socioscientific tasks. This then provided guidance for an extended study of SSI-deliberations among students, also from upper secondary school. An analysis tool, DEQUAL, was constructed in order to be in a position to assess their democratic and deliberative qualities.

The overall results showed that students could maintain respectful and engaged conversations in which they jointly created and developed arguments. However, expressions of meaning-making in terms of insights and new-found experiences were scarce. Furthermore, the students seemed too eager to agree. Although the guidelines emphasised the importance of advancing various arguments, other students’ statements were rarely challenged. If SSI-conversations are to approach democratic and deliberative ideals and stimulate meaning-making, the participants must be prepared to exchange contrasting views. According to Habermas’ theory, when deliberating one relates to a subjective world of experiences, a social world of common agreements and an objective world of facts. Since both science and SSI contribute objective, factual dimensions, it is suggested that the deliberative idea might have a particular bearing on science education, since the conversations do not just revolve around personal opinions.

It was concluded that the development of deliberative conversation skills requires careful, guided practice. It also became clear that the deliberative guidelines for seeking agreement and the teacher’s non-participation in the talks needed to be reviewed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Växjö, Kalmar: Linnaeus University Press, 2010. p. 218
Series
Linnaeus University Dissertations ; 30/2010
Keywords
Science education, argumentation, socioscientific, SSI, values, teacher education, democracy, deliberations, meaning-making, Dewey, Habermas
National Category
Pedagogy
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Pedagogics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-9478 (URN)978-91-86491-49-9 (ISBN)
Public defence
2010-12-10, Weber, Linnéuniversitetet, hus K, Växjö, 10:00 (Swedish)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2010-11-25 Created: 2010-11-25 Last updated: 2010-12-30Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. (2009). Naturvetenskapernas ämnesdidaktik i integrativa termer. In: : . Paper presented at Fagdidaktik i bevægelse. Nordisk ämnesdidaktikkonferens i Middelfart, Danmark, 13 - 15 maj 2009..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Naturvetenskapernas ämnesdidaktik i integrativa termer
2009 (Swedish)Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Pedagogics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-8444 (URN)
Conference
Fagdidaktik i bevægelse. Nordisk ämnesdidaktikkonferens i Middelfart, Danmark, 13 - 15 maj 2009.
Available from: 2010-09-15 Created: 2010-09-15 Last updated: 2014-03-26Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. (2008). Dealing with the democratic aspects in science education.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Dealing with the democratic aspects in science education
2008 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Dealing with the Democratic Aspects in Science Education

Barbro Gustafsson, PhD-student and lecturer, School of Education, Växjö University, S-351 95 Växjö, Sweden.

Background, Aims and Framework

Teachers’ main tasks can be summarized in the form of an overarching, two-part assignment: to present subject matter and to foster independent, democratic members of society. This is sometimes called “the double assignment”, comprising a subject matter (or knowledge) assignment and a democracy assignment. I see the relationship between scientific subject matter and democracy in dialectical terms. On the surface, the concepts might appear to contradict one another. However, similar to other conceptual pairs such as theory–practice, body–soul, individual–society and humankind–nature, they are united and mutually dependent by virtue of an inner relationship (Israel, 1980). I refer to Hegel’s dialectical view that involves striving to understand the commonalities among apparent opposites; my goal is to highlight the integrating whole by emphasizing the subject matter–democracy relationship in science education.

You could say that the subject matter task is in itself a democracy task, seeing that pupils who understand the subject matter of their education are better equipped to manage in their daily lives and to take an active part in democratic decisions. The democratic assignment is, however, about much more – it is about using democratic forms and communicative interaction with others to foster attitudes that are in line with the fundamental values of society.

In my work as a teacher educator, for three years I had the opportunity to meet all of Växjö University’s student teachers during their first semester of study. During a course in Sustainable Development, the students were reading the book Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning [The Natural Sciences as General Education] (Sjøberg, 2000). One of the points that are highlighted in the author’s arguments for learning science is that knowledge in science is needed for democratic reasons.

The student teachers were then asked to write down their reflections on their own view of the need for scientific literacy. The texts reflected their experiences of what science education has been like, but also their hopes about what it could be like in the future.

An analysis of the texts shows that for many of the student teachers, science education was boring and outdated. For this reason they do not care for further studies in the natural sciences. For these students, it was not enough to be able to explain how things work in a scientifically or technically correct manner – which they believe that educational practice has focused on so far. They did not become engaged. Many of them feel that they have not been trained to argue, discuss, or take a stance because most topics, particularly within physics and chemistry, are already “proven and established.” The argument that scientific literacy and science education contribute to the democratic development of individuals and society seems unfamiliar to the students. Many of them describe the opposite situation, that is, that more than any other subject, science education is characterized by authoritarian content and methods. Nor have they really understood the legitimacy of the natural sciences in the schools. The teacher students wish for a type of science education in which communication, ethical and moral reasoning, and existential and emotional issues are included. These experiences of student teachers became the starting point for my work.

The purpose of my presentation is to highlight the relationship between teachers’ subject-matter and democracy assignments, and to show how dialogue-oriented educational efforts may be used to integrate both assignments in science education.

I deal with the following questions:

• How can the subject-matter and democracy assignments be united in science education?

• How can dialogue in education help prepare pre-service teachers to better manage the dual responsibility to teach subject matter and foster democratic citizens?

The idea that dialogue and communication are important for learning subject matter and for democratic development has compelled me to combine democracy theory in the form of the deliberative dialogue model with theories about learning, communication and socialization. My interpretation of the term “socialization” is not limited to order, subordination and adaptation in relation to a given system (for example, society or the schools), in which normative frameworks specify what is correct, right, and morally acceptable behavior within the system. In education, socialization must involve the ability and willingness to show consideration for others outside one’s own given framework, according to the principles of “Enlightened understanding” (Dahl, 1989).

Conclusions and Implications

Based on research on the importance of dialogue for learning subject matter and for democratic development, I propose dialogue-based efforts to help bridge the gap between subject matter and democracy in science education. By democracy, I mainly refer to deliberative processes in which the participants – in mutual communication – test the tenability of each other’s arguments seen from a universal perspective (Benhabib, 2002; Englund, 2006; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). The idea of the importance of democratic dialogue for both learning and democracy implies that such dialogue can be seen as an opportunity to integrate the subject-matter and democracy assignments in teaching practice.

The philosophical aspect of my argument rests on the idea that dialogue can be seen in part as a democratic goal in itself, and in part as a method for achieving learning objectives within a given subject. Because deliberative discussions require a certain knowledge of subject matter, I believe that the combination offers possibilities for both scientific and democratic development.

I also argue that student teachers should practice this type of integrative effort within the framework of the subject didactics component of their teacher training. For this reason I highlight the educational possibilities inherent in deliberative discussions about authentic or fictitious “socio-scientific issues” (Kolstø, 2001; Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006) in teacher training. “Socio-scientific issues” are questions in which the problems involve scientific facts as well as sociological (normative) and subjective value aspects.

While I do not subscribe to the idea of a universal method, I do believe that teaching should be varied in order to offer different pathways to learning. One possible pathway to explore is deliberative discussions, in which pupils and even pre-service science teachers in training are given opportunities to improve their argumentation skills, their ability to take a stance, and to develop democratic skills via discussions of complex issues related to the natural sciences. Deliberative discussions can provide the opportunity to change perspectives, with an eye toward pedagogic discourse in science education, and with the goal to unite the dual assignment – knowledge of subject matter and democratic development. During their didactics training, student teachers can, for example, plan, carry out and evaluate discussion-based efforts.

However, the idea of deliberative discussions must also be critically evaluated. It is a relatively controlled procedure, which may seem rather dubious when seen from the perspective of democratic freedom. For example, the participants must agree upon the rules of order for the discussions as well as agree to follow them. To this end, they must treat each participant’s argument with respect, tolerance and sensitivity. Those who engage in a deliberative discussion must also be able to present a common ground, a form of consensus, even if it can be a question of a temporary agreement. Critics of this consensus-oriented focus point out that the explicit aim to reach an agreement in a discussion can be a hinder to critical argumentation, and thus impede the discussion. Another viewpoint is that the unavoidable power structures between different pupils – and between teachers and pupils – render genuinely deliberative discussions impossible. Additionally, the relatively out-of-the-way role of the teacher in deliberative discussions has also been questioned. In this case, I agree with Englund’s (2006) view that teachers certainly must not abdicate from their actual (subject-matter) and formal authority. When using deliberative discussions in teaching, the traditional tasks of planning and leading classroom work and answering pupils’ questions still remain. However, through their choice of material and methods, teachers – together with their pupils – can create the conditions for a “discursive situation” in which the participants agree about the guidelines of mutual respect and a willingness to understand (ibid. p. 513).

The increased use of deliberative discussions in science education would be somewhat time consuming. However, could reducing the time devoted to other elements be counterbalanced by qualitative improvements through the discussions? It is fully conceivable that discussing complex and topical “socio-scientific issues” could increase the interest in science. Discussion-based teaching can therefore be an example of one of the various changes that Osborne and Dillon (Osborne & Dillon, 2008) see as necessary in order to reverse the trend of declining recruitments to natural science education.

The potential of deliberative discussions must be evaluated against the background of the challenges I have described here. The evaluation should offer the freedom to deviate from certain aspects of the ideal behind deliberative discussions, in order to evaluate their potential in classroom situations.

The daunting and delicate task of evaluating whether or not deliberative discussions really do contribute to both democratic development and in-depth knowledge in science remains to be examined empirically. I will present some preliminary results from an empirical study including three classes in upper secondary school, studying Nature and Environment A [Naturkunskap A]. The students were discussing two “socio-scientific issues” concerning the greenhouse effect, using the guidelines from the teaching scenario presented by Gustafsson (2007, p. 115-116). In this study, the aim is to evaluate what is said and to interpret what is left unsaid, as well as how the discussions contribute to pupils’ scientific literacy and their democratic development. How scientific knowledge is used and how democracy aspects are expressed in the discussions are areas of particular interest.

Bibliography

Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture : equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton, N.J. ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: a pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503-520.

Gustafsson, B. (2007). Naturvetenskaplig undervisning och det dubbla uppdraget. NorDiNa, 3(2), 107-120.

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement : why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.

Israel, J. (1980). Språkets dialektik och dialektikens språk. Stockholm: Esselte studium.

Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Science Education for Citizenship. Thoughtful Decision-Making About Science-Related Social Issues., University of Oslo, Oslo.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe. A report to the Nuffield foundation. from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship : teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1489.

Sjøberg, S. (2000). Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning : en kritisk ämnesdidaktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Keywords
demkrati, deliberationer, dialog
National Category
Pedagogical Work
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Pedagogics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:vxu:diva-3515 (URN)
Note
Presentation vid "The 9th Nordic Research Symposium on Science Education" 11 − 15 juni 2008 i Reykjavik, IslandAvailable from: 2008-09-09 Created: 2008-09-09 Last updated: 2010-12-03Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. (2008). Efforts to include democratic aspects in science education. In: ECER 2008.: From Teaching to Learning..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Efforts to include democratic aspects in science education
2008 (English)In: ECER 2008.: From Teaching to Learning., 2008Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Efforts to include democratic aspects in science education

In a previous study, more than 200 student teachers have provided their written reflections on various arguments for knowledge and literacy in natural sciences, often situating these in relation to their own school experiences. Many of them believe that scientific literacy is necessary, particularly for dealing with social issues related to nature and the environment. Also, many of them have missed – and are now requesting – democratic arguments in science education, describing current methods of science education as difficult, boring, and old-fashioned. They are surprised to see that scientific literacy and education can be motivated for democratic purposes, but they also report experiencing a clash between democracy and science with regard to both content and educational methods. These findings got me interested in starting my thesis-work concerning ways to include democratic aspects in science education. The lack of democracy aspects in science education and the contrast between subject matter and democracy form the starting point of this contribution, which problematises the relationship between teachers’ two main tasks: teaching subject matter and fostering democratic citizens. Supported by research into the importance of dialogue for education in both subject matter and democratic competence, I propose that dialogue-based efforts could help bridge the gap between subject matter and democracy in science education. By democracy, I primarily refer to deliberative processes in which participants engage in mutual communication to discover how well their own and others’ arguments hold up when seen from a universal perspective. The idea that deliberative discussions are of both democratic and educational importance suggests that this type of dialogue can be seen as one possibility to integrate the teaching of subject matter and democratic competence. Furthermore, I suggest that education for sustainable development is a conceivable way to integrate discussions about complex social issues and scientific facts. I also outline a possible teaching scenario in which pupils engage in deliberative discussions on a theme involving these areas. These hypotheses have to be tested in empirical settings. At present, I am collecting data in upper secondary school, where students are practicing deliberative discussions concerning socio-scientific issues, in this case the green-house effect. The simulated teaching scenario is used as an outline for the empirical design. I am concerned with finding assessment tools for evaluating if the discussions can help students increasing their knowledge in science as well as their qualifications as democratic citizens. I believe that my fellow participants at this pre-conference can contribute with valuable suggestions and experiences concerning these matters.

Method

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The students´ discussions are recorded, and the tapes will be examined by using appropriate analytical tools. These are not determined yet, which means that I am looking forward to discuss the analytical methods with the pre-conference participants.

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings By using the results from the empirical study I hope I will be able to accept or reject the hypothesis that deliberative discussions in science education concerning socio-scientific issues can be used in order to integrate the teaching of subject matter and democratic competence.

References

References (Including own Publications) Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton, N.J.; Oxford: Princeton University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: a pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503-520. Fritzén, L., & Gustafsson, B. (2004). Sustainable development in terms of democracy – an educational challenge for teacher education. In P. Wickenberg, H. Axelsson, L. Fritzén, G. Helldén & J. Öhman (eds.), Learning to change our world? Lund: Studentlitteratur. Gustafsson, B. (2007). Naturvetenskapen och det dubbla uppdraget. NorDiNa, 3(2), 107-120. Gustafsson, B., Warner, M. (2008). Participatory learning and deliberative discussion within education for sustainable development. In J. Öhman (ed.), Values and democray in education for sustainable development. Malmö: Liber. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement: why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Science education for citizenship. Thoughtful decision-making about science-related social issues., University of Oslo, Oslo. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1489.

National Category
Pedagogical Work
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Pedagogics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:vxu:diva-3516 (URN)
Available from: 2008-09-09 Created: 2008-09-09 Last updated: 2010-03-09Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. (2008). Hur förena naturvetenskap och demokrati?. In: http://www.umn.su.se/content/1/c6/03/24/34/abstractsamling.pdf: Presentation vid rikskonferensen i ämnesdidaktik ”Kunskapssyn, kanon, bedömning”, 22−23 maj i Stockholm..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Hur förena naturvetenskap och demokrati?
2008 (Swedish)In: http://www.umn.su.se/content/1/c6/03/24/34/abstractsamling.pdf: Presentation vid rikskonferensen i ämnesdidaktik ”Kunskapssyn, kanon, bedömning”, 22−23 maj i Stockholm., 2008Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [sv]

Mitt bidrag handlar om att integrera naturvetenskap och demokrati i undervisningen. Studenters upplevda brister på demokratiaspekter och motsättningar mellan ämne och demokrati utgör utgångspunkt för mitt arbete, som belyser förhållandet mellan lärarens dubbla uppgift; ämnesuppdraget och demokratiuppdraget.

Med stöd i forskningen kring samtalets betydelse för såväl ämnesmässigt lärande som demokratisk utveckling föreslår jag samtalsinriktade ansatser för att överbrygga klyftan mellan ämne och demokrati i naturvetenskaplig undervisning. Det filosofiskt inriktade resonemanget handlar om att samtalet kan ses dels som ett demokratiskt mål i sig, dels som en metod för att nå kunskapsmässiga mål inom givet ämnesområde. I och med att deliberativa samtal ställer kunskapsmässiga anspråk menar jag att sådana kan erbjuda möjligheter till såväl naturvetenskaplig som demokratisk utveckling. Med demokrati avser jag främst deliberativa processer där deltagarna i en ömsesidig kommunikation prövar hur långt egna och andras argument håller i ett större perspektiv, där empatisk förmåga och gemensam strävan efter ett gott liv utgör viktiga dimensioner. Tanken om det deliberativa samtalets såväl demokratiska som kunskapsutvecklande betydelse gör att sådana samtal kan ses som en möjlighet att i undervisningen integrera ämnesuppdraget med demokratiuppdraget.

Idén om det deliberativa samtalet bör granskas kritiskt. Det är en förhållandevis styrd procedur, vilket kan uppfattas som tveksamt utifrån demokratiska frihetsanspråk. Deltagarna måste till exempel komma överens om vilka samtalsregler som ska gälla och de ska även kunna vara överens om att följa dem. Hit hör att de måste visa respekt, tolerans och lyhördhet för varandra och för andras argument. De som deltar i ett deliberativt samtal ska avslutningsvis kunna presentera en gemensam hållning, även om det kan vara frågan om en temporär överenskommelse. Denna konsensusinriktade strävan har mött kritik, då man menar att en uttalad strävan efter att komma överens i ett samtal kan motverka en kritisk argumentation och därigenom hämma diskussionen. En annan synpunkt är att ofrånkomliga maktstrukturer mellan olika elever såväl som mellan lärare och elev omöjliggör äkta deliberativa samtal. Likaså har lärarens relativt undanskymda roll i deliberativa samtal ifrågasatts. Jag menar att det deliberativa samtalets potential måste granskas mot bakgrund av de utmaningar jag redogjort för här. Granskningen bör erbjuda viss frihet att göra avsteg från någon delaspekt av det deliberativa samtalets ideal för att i undervisningssituationen pröva idén om dess potential.

Jag föreslår hållbar utveckling som ett tänkbart undervisningsområde för integrativa ansatser i form av samtal kring komplexa samhällsfrågor med naturvetenskapligt faktainnehåll. Sådana sociovetenskapliga frågeställningar innefattar förutom naturvetenskap även sociologiska (normativa) och subjektiva värdeaspekter. Jag skisserar även ett tänkt undervisningsscenario med deliberativa elevsamtal kring ett tema med sådant innehåll.

Hypotesen att elever utvecklar såväl naturvetenskapliga kunskaper som demokratiska förmågor genom att samtala kring sociovetenskapliga frågor måste prövas empiriskt. Jag genomför under våren en sådan studie i en gymnasieskola inom ramen för Naturkunskap A.

Jag spelar in elevsamtal kring växthuseffekten, för att senare analysera vad som sägs (och tolka vad som inte sägs) i sådana samtal. Av särskilt intresse är hur naturvetenskaplig kunskap används och hur demokratiaspekter kommer till uttryck i samtalet. Den grannlaga uppgiften blir att bedöma ifall diskussionerna bidragit med naturvetenskapliga kunskaper samt om och hur demokratiska förmågor har utvecklats. Här tror jag att konferensens deltagare kan bidra med värdefulla synpunkter som leder mig vidare i arbetet.

Barbro Gustafsson

Växjö universitet

Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Pedagogics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:vxu:diva-4135 (URN)
Note
Abstractsamling på adress: http://www.umn.su.se/content/1/c6/03/24/34/abstractsamling.pdfAvailable from: 2009-01-08 Created: 2009-01-08 Last updated: 2010-03-09Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, B. & Warner, M. (2008). Participatory learning and deliberative discussion within education for sustainable development. In: Values and Democracy in Education for Sustainable Development (pp. 75-92). Liber, Malmö
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Participatory learning and deliberative discussion within education for sustainable development
2008 (English)In: Values and Democracy in Education for Sustainable Development, Liber, Malmö , 2008, p. 75-92Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
Abstract [en]

In ESD, the complexity and inter-relatedness of the world has to be taken into account, including relevant social, cultural and economic perspectives as well as the ecological (science based) aspects. Due to sustainable development’s inherent complexity it might be seen as difficult to provide education within this field.

 

Parallels can be drawn between the problems faced by democracy in education and those faced by ESD. For example, it is inevitable that ethical and moral issues must be addressed in ESD as well as in democratisation. This would mean that ESD could offer educational opportunities in democracy as well as in sustainability.

 

This contribution presents evaluation of a teaching method (educational tool), focusing on its ability to enable education for sustainable development in a democratic teaching situation with the active participation of all students involved. The method was based on the ideas of deliberative discussions and carried out in a class with students at upper secondary level, studying the core subject of Naturkunskap A [Natural Sciences A]. The topic for the discussions was “The Assignment”, a multi-faceted dilemma concerning sustainable development.

 

In the evaluation, three main goals were assessed:

a)      Sustainable development goals

b)      Deliberative democracy goals (creating/stimulating deliberative discussions).

c)      Participatory learning goals

 

When it comes to sustainable development goals, it could be seen that the idea of sustainability comes through during the discussions, becoming clearer in the students thoughts as time goes by. The discussion groups often came with reasonable ideas about sustainable development, but the knowledge “backup” behind these ideas seemed to be limited. The method, with deliberative discussion at its core, really engaged the respondents in the study. They felt free to expose their standpoints, and it seems clear that (at least) some of the key features of successful deliberative discussion were fulfilled. Yet, there were no real differences of opinion within the groups, which meant that agreement on a joint solution was (a bit too) easy to achieve.

The results of the study highlights the potential ESD provides to schools in terms of tackling three goals at once; sustainable development goals, participatory goals and democracy goals.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Liber, Malmö, 2008
Keywords
Education for sustainable development, democracy, science education research, deliberations
National Category
Pedagogy
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, General Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:vxu:diva-3299 (URN)978-91-47-08851-5 (ISBN)
Available from: 2010-12-13 Created: 2008-02-08 Last updated: 2011-11-10Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications